Tomka v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a remote buyer could not recover “because he sustained only economic loss damages”
• explaining that a “nonprivity buyer” is one who did not buy the product directly from the manufacturer
• affirming dismissal of negligence and strict liability claims in case alleging purely economic injuries
• finding plaintiff’s damages fall within contract-warranty theories and that “consequential economic loss” such as “loss of profits” were not recoverable under warranty theories (citation omitted)
• finding plaintiff’s damages fall within contract-warranty theories and that “consequential economic loss” such as “loss of profits” were not recoverable under warranty theories (citation omitted)
• affirming dismissal of negligence and strict liability claims in case alleging purely economic injuries

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).